執行遠端裝置工具

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the effects can include changing files, running commands, or stopping processes, and they execute with the remote user's permissions — a non-obvious privilege detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite and the consequence warning. No wasted words, though the prerequisite arguably belongs before the severity note for faster routing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive open-world tool with a nested free-form argument object and no output schema, the description covers the risk profile but omits how to construct the arguments payload or what a successful call returns. Adequate minimum, but leaves a real gap for the opaque arguments parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints that 'device' is a named paired device and 'tool' is something listed by list_device_tools; the free-form 'arguments' object (additionalProperties=true, nested) is left entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: execute a tool on a named paired device. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_device_tools by instructing the agent to inspect that tool first, so the boundary between inspection and execution is discernible.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear prerequisite workflow ('Inspect list_device_tools first'), which is the key context for selecting this tool over its siblings. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what to do if the tool name is unknown.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.